1. Field of Invention
The present invention relates to additive manufacturing (AM) devices which manufacture multiple products, and more specifically is directed toward communications and control systems which correct errors in a network of AM devices.
2. Description of Related Art
Additive manufacturing, (“AM”) also called “3D Printing” builds products layer by layer.
AM Fabrication of Products
AM usually takes a longer time to manufacture a product as compared with conventional manufacturing which may use, for example, milling and drilling.
The AM technology was effective for AM fabrication of low-volume production, such as in the case of prototyping. However, for commercial purposes, systems are required which can mass produce AM products. At the time of the writing of this application, there are few systems capable of mass AM manufacturing.
Focused on Prototypes
Since AM's invention in the 1980's, 3D printing technology has been focused primarily on non-end use applications such as prototypes and visual aids. However, AM technology has seen significant improvement over the last decade, many of those improvements focusing on the creation of AM devices capable of producing end-use parts out of material such as metals. As the AM market continues to grow, industry demand for the production of end-use AM components in mass has become a primary focus.
AM is often viewed as having ground breaking potential relative to the fabrication of customizable consumer products, industrial components, etc. As AM, aka 3D printing, adoption has increased, AM's undesirable issues relative to traditional manufacturing techniques have begun surfacing.
Presently, AM adoptability is suffering from an inability to scale AM production to mass manufacturing levels, relative to traditional mass manufacturing techniques.
Traditional mass manufacturing methodologies and techniques, such as injection molding, that are capable of scaling to meet mass manufacturing demands, are reliable, economical, and fast. These three principles enable traditional manufacturing methodologies to support the reliable production of billions of products around the globe every year. In contrast, AM methodologies are currently unreliable, expensive, and slow relative to traditional manufacturing methods.
Failure to Utilize Monitoring Data
AM processes and systems fail to collect and utilize in-situ process monitoring data to correct geometric and mechanical property discrepancies, relative to the intended output, during the fabrication process.
Typically, a 3D model is loaded into an AM device and the entire model is printed. It is later examined for errors and if out of tolerance, it is rejected and discarded as scrap. Since it takes a substantial amount of time to create this product using AM, each rejected product is a loss of efficiency. Also, each rejected product is a loss of raw materials used to manufacture it.
There have been advances, such as U.S. Pat. No. 9,912,915 by the current Inventor, Joseph M. Sinclair, which monitors the product being manufactured, detects errors, and makes corrections as the product is being manufactured.
Therefore, many products may be salvaged if small errors are detected. Also, those with larger errors which may not be corrected are rejected when the errors are detected, saving manufacturing time and raw materials. This is clearly an advancement over the prior art AM devices.
Failure to Produce Traceability & Quality Reports
Additionally, AM processes and systems fail to provide sufficient in-situ process monitoring data from the fabrication process(es) to produce traceability & quality reports for AM components and processes.
Thus far, these trade-offs have been accepted by industry in the hope that AM will one day be able to compete head-to-head with traditional manufacturing process.
This inability for existing AM technologies and systems to produce end-use components at a rate that can match traditional manufacturing methods greatly hinders 3D printing technologies' ability to compete for the manufacture of consumer products.
To address the scalability bottle neck AM is facing, new innovations within the 3D printing arena have primarily focused on speeding up the AM fabrication process. However, these innovations often are able to reduce print speeds by adding additional post process sintering and/or curing steps. This method simply pushes the problem further down the fabrication process and does not fully address the inability for AM to function in a factory environment as do traditional manufacturing technologies.
Repeatability & Reliability
AM processes and systems suffer from repeatability & reliability issues and fail to produce components of near-identical geometric and mechanical properties as is standard with traditional manufacturing processes. AM processes and systems fail to collect and utilize in-situ process monitoring data to correct geometric and mechanical property discrepancies, relative to the intended output, during the fabrication process. Additionally, AM processes and systems fail to provide sufficient in-situ process monitoring data from the fabrication process(es) to produce traceability & quality reports for AM components and processes.
AM processes and systems struggle to produce end-use components in mass.
Currently, there is a need to efficiently mass produce high-quality products using AM.